Life In 19x19

RBerenguel wrote:It's almost a form of bullying. A chess match is a relatively fast undertaking, and a good amateur can hold on its own for "a while" against a master until a blunder happens. But the distance between a pro or top pro and a mid-level amateur (a SDK-low dan) is *huge*. If the pro puts himself into it the game may not last more than 100-120 moves and be essentially Chuck Norris against a Teletubby.

I'm not sure I understand this point? Firstly, 100 moves is longer than your average chess game. Secondly, as a weak dan, I'm pretty sure I could hold "for a while" against a pro. If we play some conventional joseki sequences, and I don't make too many mistakes in direction, and the pro waits for me to make mistakes rather than starting complex fights from the start, I could enter the middle game with a reasonably even position. Yes, lots of if's, but in a teaching game they are not unreasonable.

Is your point that the gap between a pro and a weak dan is greater than the gap between a chess grand master and a moderate club player? I'm not sure that's true, or if so, not by much. I read somewhere once that while chess has about 30-32 unique skill levels (a level being where the stronger player beats the weaker player, one level down, 2/3 of the time), go has about 40 levels. I don't know how true this is for chess, but for go, it's only true in the most technical sense, because its plausible for a player to increase from 28k to 27k within a single game, so I don't think the 30-23k ranks are all that well defined.

There are a number of Japanese amateur players who are capable of winning no-handicap games against pros. Most of the players who win national championships are pro-strength amateurs. Kikuchi Yasuro has beaten several top pros in even games.

Some people assume that if a player is strong enough to play on even with pros then he would want to become a pro. But such is not the case in reality. No doubt there are amateur players in China and Korea who can play on even with professionals.

gowan wrote:There are a number of Japanese amateur players who are capable of winning no-handicap games against pros. Most of the players who win national championships are pro-strngth amateurs. Kikuchi Yasuro has beaten several top pros in even games.

Some people assume that if a player is strong enough to play on even with pros then he would want to become a pro. But such is not the case in reality. No doubt there are amateur players in China and Korea who can play on even with professionals.

Agreed, I think that's what the OP was asking. But the last few posts relate to games where "preferably the pro not going easy and not giving handycaps (so basically crushing the amateur)?".

quantumf wrote:

RBerenguel wrote:It's almost a form of bullying. A chess match is a relatively fast undertaking, and a good amateur can hold on its own for "a while" against a master until a blunder happens. But the distance between a pro or top pro and a mid-level amateur (a SDK-low dan) is *huge*. If the pro puts himself into it the game may not last more than 100-120 moves and be essentially Chuck Norris against a Teletubby.

I'm not sure I understand this point? Firstly, 100 moves is longer than your average chess game. Secondly, as a weak dan, I'm pretty sure I could hold "for a while" against a pro. If we play some conventional joseki sequences, and I don't make too many mistakes in direction, and the pro waits for me to make mistakes rather than starting complex fights from the start, I could enter the middle game with a reasonably even position. Yes, lots of if's, but in a teaching game they are not unreasonable.

Is your point that the gap between a pro and a weak dan is greater than the gap between a chess grand master and a moderate club player? I'm not sure that's true, or if so, not by much. I read somewhere once that while chess has about 30-32 unique skill levels (a level being where the stronger player beats the weaker player, one level down, 2/3 of the time), go has about 40 levels. I don't know how true this is for chess, but for go, it's only true in the most technical sense, because its plausible for a player to increase from 28k to 27k within a single game, so I don't think the 30-23k ranks are all that well defined.

I wrote that answer very early and somehow couldn't write it clearly enough. It's something I can't really explain in words. I guess it's due that in go there is a long tradition of handicap and teaching games. But somehow I have the feeling that a top player (be it pro, or not) against a relatively low amateur can totally crush it in some sense "faster" than the equivalent rank difference in chess would. But it's just a feeling I have, from having played chess for many years, and go for many years, too.

Edit: not like it is any clearer now. Forget it.

gowan wrote:There are a number of Japanese amateur players who are capable of winning no-handicap games against pros. Most of the players who win national championships are pro-strngth amateurs. Kikuchi Yasuro has beaten several top pros in even games.

Some people assume that if a player is strong enough to play on even with pros then he would want to become a pro. But such is not the case in reality. No doubt there are amateur players in China and Korea who can play on even with professionals.

Every so often you'll see Amateur Meijin vs Meijin and Amateur Honinbo vs Honinbo matches in weekly go. They'll either be no komi or reverse komi and interesting games of how to play against those odds. Of course the amateurs in these cases are pro strength but not the top level.

I think a month or two ago was the student meijin taking two stones from Iyama and was also an interesting game to see.

paK0 wrote:Mh, maybe this is something unique to go culture, but in any other game a result where the pro would not beat the amateur would be considered ridiculous.

It's the level of beating that comes into play. The pro will win, that's almost for sure. He just isn't likely to play for the largest margin.

Be great if go had something like this (maybe it does).

Thankfully Josh is also a fan of such games:

I was actually looking for games where pros paly vs weak amateur dans or somewhere around that level. I know that there are a lot of amateurs who are strong as pros, but to me this is same as pro vs amateur.

Why I am looking for these games is that I want to see how pros handle some common situations, mistakes, and so on. How they react to over and under plays.

The Cho Hunhyun series are AMAZING!!!

He plays so calmly, his moves are so simple yet ultra effective. I am at that level where I can see the reasoning behind moves and how he plays is really amazing to me, but the most amazing thing is how the moves look so natural and right. I only wonder why I can't play moves like that, I mean they seem so simple and natural, yet I always play some stupid, unnecessary moves and make things go bad.

I would sell my soul to the devil just so that I could play like that, these series are both euphoric and depressive in the same time, cause I know this is simply something a mere mortal like myself can not achieve.

happysocks wrote:...

Yeah, thats the book I was referring to, its a great read.

RBerenguel wrote:

paK0 wrote:Mh, maybe this is something unique to go culture, but in any other game a result where the pro would not beat the amateur would be considered ridiculous.

It's the level of beating that comes into play. The pro will win, that's almost for sure. He just isn't likely to play for the largest margin.

Well, I guess you could see it that way, still, I believe every time someone goes easy in a game a learning opportunity is lost.



Looking back I might have not made myself clear. I wasn't really looking for amateurs loosing for entertainment, but mostly for situations like: "Here the amateur made a mistake, here is the proper way to punish it", pretty much what Krama describes.

That would be an interesting book - sadly I'm not aware of such a book.

Though, going back to my Tygem suggestion, I think there is an account that started from 18k and has a perfect record (202 wins, 0 losses) to 9d. Might be interesting to look at the games along the way I don't have Tygem on my computer at the moment, but I think the account name is "雁".

illluck wrote:That would be an interesting book - sadly I'm not aware of such a book.

Though, going back to my Tygem suggestion, I think there is an account that started from 18k and has a perfect record (202 wins, 0 losses) to 9d. Might be interesting to look at the games along the way I don't have Tygem on my computer at the moment, but I think the account name is "雁".

One of the best sources of pro-ama even games where the pros pulled no punches would be IGS from the period around 1999 when the pros first discovered online Go. At the time the highest rank you could choose yourself was 4d so all the greats started there and worked their way up while simulaneously pushing the rest of us down. I have a few hundred games saved by the likes of Cigar, jiin, Soft, Zhaoyun, posh, etc. There were various discussions on rgg as to who was who.

Krama wrote:I was actually looking for games where pros paly vs weak amateur dans or somewhere around that level. I know that there are a lot of amateurs who are strong as pros, but to me this is same as pro vs amateur.

Why I am looking for these games is that I want to see how pros handle some common situations, mistakes, and so on. How they react to over and under plays.

The Cho Hunhyun series are AMAZING!!!

He plays so calmly, his moves are so simple yet ultra effective. I am at that level where I can see the reasoning behind moves and how he plays is really amazing to me, but the most amazing thing is how the moves look so natural and right. I only wonder why I can't play moves like that, I mean they seem so simple and natural, yet I always play some stupid, unnecessary moves and make things go bad.

I would sell my soul to the devil just so that I could play like that, these series are both euphoric and depressive in the same time, cause I know this is simply something a mere mortal like myself can not achieve.

I just noticed, that Cho Hun Hyun loses all of the handicap games and ties one. For instance he loses the H6 game against a 6k by 5 points (lol). The victory margins are 1 point, 3 points, 5 points, resignation, 3 points, and a tie.

I guess this makes sense since this program is about recognizing people who are doing good things in Korea (and also play baduk), so there is not much point to beating them down. It's interesting to see his "respectful handicap" playstyle, very light, shapely, and understandable, without any bloodlust, heart-attack inducing plays, or "shaking the opponent".

Not sure if anybody hass already posted this but there's How to Play Against the Stronger Player. Volume 2 is a series of commented handicap games against amateurs (4 to 9 stones).

Krama wrote:I only wonder why I can't play moves like that,

Have you ever asked yourself this question in any field other than Go ?

Krama wrote:I was actually looking for games where pros paly vs weak amateur dans or somewhere around that level. I know that there are a lot of amateurs who are strong as pros, but to me this is same as pro vs amateur.

Why I am looking for these games is that I want to see how pros handle some common situations, mistakes, and so on. How they react to over and under plays.

Have you looked at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NLXtB9AMJo

Nick Sibicky (4 dan, but sandbagging as a 1 dan) against a 1 dan, in which Sibicky records a running monolog during the game (a rational for playing down). While post game analysis is interesting, I found his running thought process concerning what move is anticipated from the opponent and how he can punish "unnatural" deviations from the direction of play extremely useful and interesting. But then I am a beginner, and I probably would not understand the extra nuances in a game between an amateur dan and a pro--especially when the emphasis is on analyzing a bewildering array of long variations.